What Faith Was That, Governor?

Pat Quinn is the Governor of the State of Illinois. He was Lieutenant Governor under Rod Blagojevich and took over after Blago was impeached and convicted by the State Legislature. Quinn bucked the Republican tide this year and won election to a four year term, narrowly defeating pro-life Republican Bill Brady. In that campaign Quinn emphasized that he is a pro-abort.

Pat Quinn claims to be a Roman Catholic. The State Legislature this week passed a civil unions (pretend marriage) bill for homosexuals. Quinn has vowed to sign it.

My guess is that this is more about Quinn paying back the gay activist groups who contributed money to his campaign, than it is about his faith. I don’t recall him making an issue of civil unions/gay marriage until maybe a couple of months before the election.

Do these statements indicate that Bp. Paprocki will invoke Canon 915 against Gov. Quinn or is considering it? Anything is possible, I suppose. However, if he did, I don’t know that it would have much of an effect. You see, Quinn still has a home in Chicago, and most of his public appearances on weekends are in that area. More likely than not he goes to Mass there. The Cathedral is only 2 blocks from the governor’s mansion and I belong to that parish but I have yet to see him or any other well-known, Catholic statewide official at a weekend Mass. Of course, maybe I’m just going to Mass at the wrong times 🙂 A formal canonical action, if it comes to that, would need Cardinal George and all the bishops of Illinois on board to really be effective.

What is disgustingly amusing about this is that the Governor professes it a matter of conscience that the gay lobby be given a bauble that was dreamed up around about 1986. Our social policy is being set by people who are driven by fashion and when asked to explain themselves have nothing to offer but ‘whatever’.

My guess is that this is more about Quinn paying back the gay activist groups who contributed money to his campaign, than it is about his faith.

Thirty some years ago, the National Organizaton for Women had occasion to complain that state Governors were unwilling to horse trade to get their pet project (the ‘Equal Rights Amendment’) passed. I think it was Governor Thompson of Illinois who offered in reply that for the opposition it was a matter of conscience as well and ‘you don’t trade a constitutional amendment for a job or a bridge’. I guess standards in Illinois have been in long-term decline.

Actually this bill opens up even more cans of moral, societal, and fiscal worms than just gay marriage…

Because the civil unions provided for in this bill are open to BOTH opposite-sex and same-sex couples, some senior citizens think it might provide a convienient resolution to the dilemma of widows/widowers who want to remarry without losing Social Security, pension or other benefits from their previous spouses.

A civil union under this law would be recognized by the State and grant all the rights the State normally grants to married couples (inheritance, insurance coverage, medical decision making, etc.), but since it wouldn’t be recognized by the FEDERAL government, wouldn’t affect Social Security benefits or change one’s income tax filing status.

So, what happens if a Catholic or mixed-faith couple, one or both of whom is widowed and has a pension or other source of income they would lose upon remarriage, decides to opt for a civil union instead, and then decides to marry in the Church? What are they going to tell the priest when he asks for their marriage license? What is the priest going to do when he discovers they don’t have one? Is the couple guilty of fraud or cooperation with evil? Does their legal status impinge upon whether or not the sacrament is valid?

“Because the civil unions provided for in this bill are open to BOTH opposite-sex and same-sex couples, some senior citizens think it might provide a convienient resolution to the dilemma of widows/widowers who want to remarry without losing Social Security, pension or other benefits from their previous spouses.”

I don’t wish to insult you Elaine, but that observation was worthy of an attorney! 🙂

The dirty little secret about gay marriage and civil unions is that, outside of the activist homosexuals, there is precious little evidence that homosexuals en masse are much interested in either one. The type of gaming of the system you mention regarding heterosexuals using civil unions to get around social security regulations, or losing health insurance or pension benefits for that matter, might be the chief legacy of the creation of these pretend marriages. Legislation always has unintended consequences and this might well be one in the case of civil unions.

Another group that may be interested in civil unions as a “lite” form of marriage: young people who want to get on their significant other’s health insurance plan (if it doesn’t already cover domestic partners) but aren’t yet ready for a “real” wedding because they can’t afford the big bridezilla party, or for other reasons.

However, the ability to have one’s wedding… er, civil union, cake and eat it too won’t last very long if and when the federal government decides to recognize same-sex unions or put them fully on a par with civil marriage. That might please gay activists but probably won’t please the opposite-sex couples who use civil unions to game the benefit system.

This is as much a rebuke of Quinn as it is the blue collar Chicago catholics who voted him back into office. The fact that catholics continue to vote for such pro-aborts is also a poor reflection on the unfortunate ineffectual leadership of Cardinal George.

I gather Quinn is not permitted to receive at any Catholic parish within the Springfield diocese? Is that right?

I ask because doing so would be, under the circumstances, dangerous for Quinn personally. St. Paul asserts that some folk get sick or die as a chastisement from God for taking the body and blood while not properly disposed.

So, did Bishop Paprocki take this additional pastoral step of keeping Quinn out of harm’s way? (I suppose he could have done it privately.)